Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Hi.I am new to the forum and I need some good advice to buy a new digital piano.Currently, I own a KAWAI CA-93. I love my piano and as many of you may know, its action is good and its sound is even better.But I need a piano with better response and I was wondering which is the best option.I live in Costa Rica, and unfortunately there are no KAWAI dealers here. Actually I had to buy my CA-93 from musicstore.de since there are no online stores in US that sell these models.Also, the ROLAND dealers here don't have any V-piano so I can test them.

Now, the reason why I am looking a DP is because many times I practice late at night, so my question is, since I have no chance to test these pianos in my country, which is better for a serious pianist? Which will be the most adequate to play any classical music (specially Liszt and Chopin)?:

-KAWAI CA-95-ROLAND V-PIANO (NOT the "grand" version)

Also how different is the RM3 action vs GF action? Is GF better? I've read somewhere that is is lighter than RM3, and I don't like that at all.And how is PHA-III in the V-piano better than any of KAWAI pianos' actions?

Also how different is the RM3 action vs GF action? Is GF better? I've read somewhere that is is lighter than RM3, and I don't like that at all.And how is PHA-III in the V-piano better than any of KAWAI pianos' actions?

I'm afraid we do not have a ton of reviews of GF yet, so it's hard to say. GF has a three-sensor action while RM3 has two, so if you are an accomplished pianist you might find it more responsive. How true this is in practice is kind of an open question at this point. There was one person who said in this forum that it was lighter, but usually we wait until either many people say something like that or a very respected forum member says it. Neither have happened yet, so we can't be sure on that.

PHA-III is also a three-sensor action found in the V and also in the RD700NX and FP7F. It's considered light, quick, and responsive. It is well-beloved but some people feel it is too light (so that it's easier to play than an acoustic). If you can play an RD700NX or FP7F (or one of several expensive consoles) you can get a feel for it yourself.

The V piano is a very contentious piano because some people love its tone and others hate it. However, I think everyone pretty much agrees that it is responsive and pianistic.

By the way, you say you want a more responive piano but not one with a lighter action than your current one. To some degree responsive and heavy are opposites in digital pianos--I guess that depends on your definition of responsive, though. If actual key mass is not an issue, you might be able to get more responsiveness by tweaking the velocity curve and/or using a differnt tone engine like a software piano. Beyond that, only a triple sensor could help.

If you really don't want lighter than your current Kawai, I would exclude all Rolands.

I can tell you without a doubt that you can't go wrong with the PHA-III action in the V-Piano, as it is very smooth, is nicely weighted (not too light in my opinion as others have been saying) and allows for very fast repetitions.

Also, the connectivity of the sounds and action for what you will hear is quite remarkable as you can play anything you want from "pp" to "ffff" with no problem whatsoever. It is great for classical music.

If you already like your CA93, then the new CA95 might be what you are looking for as it will have a triple sensor "Grand Feel" action, as it may (or, may not) give you the "better response" you are looking for.

It's probably a tough call to make if you are choosing between the PHA-III of Roland, or, the new three sensor action in the Kawai. Unless you can try them yourself it is difficult to make a recommendation.

Ca-93 to ca-95 upgrade. Be carefull that you don't get dissapointed. Differences might not be that big to make it worth it, or the GF may not be you're cup of tea. Some like it heavier and others easier on the fingers. Also RM3 is already pretty good in itself. Pitty you can't first try for yourself somehow.

keybeds; I found the PHA-III on the FP7f pretty light and easy to play. The Kawai was a bit heavier, but I found the touch of the RM3 much better and more realistic for an acoustic grand. That's personal , I know. The new RH II of the Kawai ES7 I found quite similar to the PHA-III. There will probably be a whole new range of KAWAI's on the horizon that utilize that keybed. If you prefer PHA-III over RM3 and Kawai sound over Roland sound, I would suggest you try new KAWAI's with RH II when they become available. Might save you a whole lot of money compared to the GF based top line. All in all for classical music I would prefer the Kawai RM3 and GF over PHA-III by a slight margin , but the Roland sound is more expressive on the V-piano (and SN boards) , due to physical modeling. Tough choice. Sticking with the Ca-93 is no option ? It's no that bad , is it ...?

Regarding dealers in Costa Rica, I will need to confirm this with my colleague responsible for Central America on Monday, however according to the Kawai Worldwide Distribution list, Allegro Music in Moravia, San Jose, is the official distributor for Kawai instruments in your region.

Is hinted to stick to your CA-93 because I'm just jaleous ;-) Would love to own a 65 / 95 too, but if I already had a CA-93 that would make it a harder choice. There must be specific reasons to upgrade and it must be enough reason to make it a viable purchase. For me it would be the triple sensor, but what's your main reason - you feel it's too slow in repetition , or doesn't it connect good enough with the sound ( other kind of response) ? Just curious...

@pv88:Wow, very nice recording, congrats!And yes, it is hard to decide. The thing with the ROLAND dealers here is, they don't have any DP with PHA-III, so I can't even compare it to my RM3.

Originally Posted By: Kawai James

Regarding dealers in Costa Rica, I will need to confirm this with my colleague responsible for Central America on Monday, however according to the Kawai Worldwide Distribution list, Allegro Music in Moravia, San Jose, is the official distributor for Kawai instruments in your region.

I can't believe I missed that. Thank you very muchBut I would appreciate if you confirm that, please. I will also call there on monday to check if they still distribute KAWAI DPs and if they have any CA-65/95 available or when they will arrive.

Originally Posted By: JFP

Is hinted to stick to your CA-93 because I'm just jaleous ;-) Would love to own a 65 / 95 too, but if I already had a CA-93 that would make it a harder choice. There must be specific reasons to upgrade and it must be enough reason to make it a viable purchase. For me it would be the triple sensor, but what's your main reason - you feel it's too slow in repetition , or doesn't it connect good enough with the sound ( other kind of response) ? Just curious...

Well, the problem is just in repetitions.I love everything else from my CA93. But if the GF action is better but not lighter and the GF Pedal actually gives more control, I would buy a CA95 without hesitation.At first, I was worried because I thought it was a problem with my technique, but after doing some fast repetitions with both hands and after asking my teacher to try it (he played a bit of Hungarian Rhapsody 2), we knew that it was the keyboard.I don't feel RM3 slow, but there is something weird with repetitions. Repetitions begin without problems, but after a few seconds, the key does not return fast enough.I also thought the piano needed some maintenance, but I don't believe it's that, I mean it's 8 months old, but I didn't have any problems until I started studying Liszt.

Well, the problem is just in repetitions.I love everything else from my CA93. But if the GF action is better but not lighter and the GF Pedal actually gives more control, I would buy a CA95 without hesitation.At first, I was worried because I thought it was a problem with my technique, but after doing some fast repetitions with both hands and after asking my teacher to try it (he played a bit of Hungarian Rhapsody 2), we knew that it was the keyboard.I don't feel RM3 slow, but there is something weird with repetitions. Repetitions begin without problems, but after a few seconds, the key does not return fast enough.I also thought the piano needed some maintenance, but I don't believe it's that, I mean it's 8 months old, but I didn't have any problems until I started studying Liszt.

@Pelota:

Thanks, as I am glad you liked the recording. As you can hear the V-Piano is a fantastic instrument for both control of dynamics of the sounds and the action, and, I believe that you should be able play just about anything you want on it.

Possibly, but not necessarily. My Casio has a triple-sensor action, yet it suffers from exactly the same problem - it repeats well for a while, but if you keep repeating, it starts missing repeats. It's like there's a mechanical resonance which takes a few seconds to build up. I feel that my old two-sensor Kawai MP9000 is better in this regard. It would be interesting to see what Pelota thinks of the triple-sensor Kawai action though.

Fortunately for my sake long vigorous repetitions aren't very important. Much more common is playing just two very rapid repeats, where my finger pretty much stays in contact with the key for both repeats. The Casio (PX-330) is working fine for that, and it takes less effort than it does on the Kawai. I haven't attempted to determine how frequently I'm using the third sensor for this style of playing. I think it's mostly the lighter action that I appreciate more than the third sensor.

Perhaps it has been mentioned somewhere before, but since in this thread the issue of maintaince was brought up (perhaps the RM3 needs some maintaince...) , I was wondering if the RM3 and GF keybeds do indeed need maintainance once on a while, just like acoustic piano's ? It's a wooden keybed that has been made to closely mimic an acoustic keybed after all, and those acoustic mechanics do need maintainance.

I have a little self interest here, since I'm deciding between a es7 with pedal unit and stand, or - if I can scrap enough money together - a CA65. Maintainance can be another issue that can be an advantage of disadvantage to one of those KAWAI's. I assume the more synthetic RH II doesn't need maintainance. For the GF I don't know ?

Perhaps it has been mentioned somewhere before, but since in this thread the issue of maintaince was brought up (perhaps the RM3 needs some maintaince...) , I was wondering if the RM3 and GF keybeds do indeed need maintainance once on a while, just like acoustic piano's ? It's a wooden keybed that has been made to closely mimic an acoustic keybed after all, and those acoustic mechanics do need maintainance.

Maintenance may be necessary for RM3 / GF in regards to the parts that are common to a grand piano (replacement of compressed felts, lubrication of guide pins, adjustment capstan screw height), but there are far more parts to a grand action that can go out of regulation, not to mention wear out and need to be replaced altogether, compared to RM3 / GF which is largely simplified in comparison.

Just spoke with Allegro Music from here, but they do not have any of the Concert Artist series available. And they don't have any idea of when and if they will have any of those available.Since they're the only KAWAI dealers here, they told me that they could import it for me, but ONLY if I was going to buy it, of course.

That probably means that I will have to wait until we get some serious reviews about the new GF action and serious comparisons between GF and RM3.

I don't doubt that GF is better, but I am concerned about the weight of its keys.

I do believe you will find the "Grand Feel" triple sensor action in the CA95 to be much improved over the CA93's two sensor action.

Also, it is going to have much longer piano samples (Harmonic Imaging "XL") along with "Virtual Technician" modeling settings that allow you to increase the "Decay time" as well as many other parameters.

No, as I haven't yet played on a CA95, although I do have a Kawai EP3 which only has two sensors and can say that even though it is okay it cannot compare with the triple sensor PHAIII action of my V-Piano, for example.

And, in regards to faster repeated notes it appears that no two sensor action in any digital cannot rival one that has three sensors, in general. It is just that much more responsive to touch with dynamic levels, also.

If you can afford to buy a digital with a three sensor action, why would anyone settle for one with only two sensors?

It will enhance the control and feel of the playing, there is no doubt.

Possibly, but not necessarily. My Casio has a triple-sensor action, yet it suffers from exactly the same problem - it repeats well for a while, but if you keep repeating, it starts missing repeats. It's like there's a mechanical resonance which takes a few seconds to build up. I feel that my old two-sensor Kawai MP9000 is better in this regard. It would be interesting to see what Pelota thinks of the triple-sensor Kawai action though.

Greg.

I do agree with you, in assuming it will be an improvement pv88. It was after reading this quote I considered it may not be so black and white, though i doubt Kawai would change it if they didnt see an issue with the CA93 in the first place.. If the music shop hadn't messed up my order i'd be finding out for myself monday... :0(

Note that the comment I made refers only to vigorous, alternating hands repetition. (something I have never had to do yet, playing real music) When I compared a lowly upright piano to the Casio using this technique, I also preferred it to the Casio, despite the fact that uprights don't have double-escapement.

My piano tuning book talks about double-escapement, and it seems that it's more to do with rapid pianissimo repeats than it is for forte repeats. The key does not have to return as far, making it easier to play rapidly and softly. (e.g for soft trills) I haven't done any comparisons between the PX-330 and the MP9000 in this regard yet, because I'm not playing like that much at all either.

I guess the most scientific way to determine whether the third sensor would be noticable to a pianist would be to use the exact same mechanical action, and then compare two versions - one that was designed as well as possible using just two sensors, and the other designed as well as possible using three sensors.

Originally Posted By: xhappyrabbitx

though i doubt Kawai would change it if they didnt see an issue with the CA93 in the first place..

It's possible that Kawai added the third sensor as a box-ticking exercise, to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak.

The issue is possibly similar to when I was into my motorbikes... arguing the toss over minor improvements each year boasted by manufacturers when us mere mortals didn't have the skill to exploit the improvements anyway.. however the knowledge that weaknesses are ironed out meant we could aspire to be great, and it is only our determination and skill limiting us..

That's how I feel about my new purchase.... it'll be a long term relationship not a quick fling :-)

Hi Greg. It is quite possible it's just another box ticking exercise, it's soon be exposed on here!

If you find that the CA95 repeats better than some other model, you still can't say that the improvement is unequivocally due to the fact that the CA95 has three sensors. To be absolutely sure, you would have to compare with another DP that used exactly the same action, except with two sensors. However, it may well be due to the triple sensors - no argument there.

@EssBrace: Agreed, that is a good example I think. However, I don't agree that that kind of playing is the only kind of playing that would benefit. Again - my piano tuning book specifically mentions soft trilling. It gives an example of a xylophone player that starts of playing a trill softly, and slowly builds a crescendo. As the player plays harder and harder, the mallets will be lifted higher and higher. (imagine trying to play a xylophone softly and rapidly, if you were forced to lift the mallets a long way up - it would be extremely difficult). It's the same on a grand piano - the hammers start off very close to the strings, and the keys also start off with a very shallow return. As the pianist builds strength during the trill, the hammers and keys travel further. On an upright piano (or a 2-sensor DP), it may well not be possible to play the trill as softly, because if the hammers have to be lifted further in order to repeat, it would be impossible to play rapidly and still have the hammer strike the strings softly - the hammers would be accelerated too much because they are starting from a position that is further away from the strings.

The third sensor can have a value beyond box ticking and fast note repetition.

0 - damp1 - velocity upper2 - velocity lower

If I understand it correctly, placing the upper velocity switch position (1) closer to the lower velocity switch position (2) will provide a better estimate of final key velocity. Having the damping switch (0) near the top of the return travel is probably more realistic as well.

@Dewster: Yes, I especially agree that having the top sensor higher is more realistic, at least, in theory. For example, it could make a noticable improvement to legato playing. This assumes that the 2-sensor DPs have the top sensor lower than the top sensor in a tri-sensor action though - I'm not sure this is always the case. (I remember measuring a 2-sensor Roland, and I think it's top sensor was relatively high - higher than on my Kawai MP9000, which has it at about 50%) Of course, if a 2-sensor action does have the top sensor at the correct point for damping, that would be at the expense of repetition speed.